Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[pming]

Hiya!

But in 1e/2e exactly the same thing happened!

My Ftr/MU/Thf has the levels x/y/z. I go on a loooong adventure (because we levelled more slowly in those days) and did plenty of sneaking and casting and, okay, a bit of fighting, but when I accumulate enough XPs to level up in one of those classes (because each class had its own advancement table) the class that gets +1 level is not based on the things you did in the adventure that garnered those XPs but on those tables. It may very well be that those tables dictate that my fighter level increases, and now I am x+1/y/z.

Er...no? I mean, technically, if the DM always awards XP equally to all a MC characters classes, it may look that way, but it really isn't. I can't remember where (took a quick look in the 1e PHB and DMG in the likely spots) but I distinctly remember reading that the DM could/should award a MC characters XP "unequally" if it made more sense (e.g., a F/T who is in a gladatorial pit fighting his way to freedom gets 3000xp; the DM could say that 2k of it goes to Fighter, and only 1k to Thief, for example).

But even if the DM doesn't do that, and lets the player divide XP evenly, just because one of the characters classes advanced a level doesn't mean the character didn't learn anything in the other(s). It's just that they didn't learn enough in the others. A Fighter/Thief who gets 500xp that bumps up his Thief a level but not his Fighter doesn't mean the PC didn't "learn anything about fighting"...because he did; he learned 250xp worth of fighting as indicated by the 250xp increase under his Fighter XP total. With 3.x onward, that doesn't happen. It's a lump sum of XP and when that total hits some amount, the character increases a level.

For a perfect example of that just look at what is referred to as "level dipping". A PC adds a single level of Warlock so he can get one particular special ability. And that's it. He then continues to only level up his Paladin, or Cleric, or whatever class and never increases his Warlock one...even if he is constantly using the one or two Warlock abilities because he can combine it with one of his 'main' classes abilities in order to get a power boost. The character never really "learns" anything about being a Warlock. Well, until that time when he gains another level and the player just decides "Well, why not? I'll add another level of Warlock for fun".

That's my main beef with MC'ing in 3.x+ editions.

Conceptually, you could still have trained to be a F/M/T since 2e. You could be a long-lived elf who trained from childhood to be all three classes in 1e or 5e. In 1e you have the advantage that at first level you are all three, while in 5e you only start as one class and cannot actually use the abilities of a second class until you have killed 300 XP-worth of goblins. Wonky? Yeah.

Uh, no again? In 5e you are never a "F/M/T". The player may conceptualize and have a written background history that tries to explain the whole F/M/T class 'training', but the rules don't support it. Once you get 300 xp you THEN can add one of those classes abilities to your character. After some more xp you can add the third. After more xp you can even add a fourth...which could have nothing to do with your background history. Or you could up one of your F/M/T classes...but only one. And no matter what you do, or how your do it, the player can always choose to just up a single one of those classes.

This is fine for a lot of people who really enjoy the freedom that the 3.x+ editions of the game gave you. That's fine. But it's also not for me. As I said, my main beef with the MC system in 3.x+ editions has always been that it just doesn't feel like a MC character.

But in 5e you can do some sensible things which you could not in 1e: you can, as a multiclass character, choose to emphasise some aspects of your multiclass over others, concentrating on (say) being the best fencer you can be while just using your wizard-y stuff for utility rituals and things that make you a better fencer, but that Bladesong really helps in a duel! You can also learn some stuff in later life that you never thought of in childhood. Both of these are sensible, realistic possibilities, and 5e allows them.

Yes, completely agree with the overall sentiment of the above. But I don't like it as far as trying to use MC rules to accomplish it. I would rather the player and DM have some means of accomplishing that. As there are a thousand different ways to do it, that's probably why the writers didn't; it would end up becoming more of a "point buy based" game system...and, imho, that's not D&D. The old "2.5e" Skills & Powers book took a stab at this. Decent enough stab, but one that required a LOT of effort and restraint on both the Player and DM side of the screen. Played a campaign using those rules way back when. It was the Night Below boxed set; played for a few months until a TPK somewhere in the depths.

I can, of course, "rationalize" why a 5e F/M/T gets good at one class and has no specific advancement towards the others. I can come up with backgrounds, special "Professions" or "Orders" that require a particular class-combo (basically, "prestige classes", more or less). And that's cool...I just wish it was more like 1e's MC where the PC could actually start and continue as a F/M/T. As I said; I just don't like the way 3.x+ MC feels.

But 1e disallows any choice of focus for multiclass PCs, who remain bound by those class experience tables. It disallows-for demihumans-picking up new skills later. Meanwhile, humans CAN do the latter but CANNOT do the former! Why? Because 1e is wonky that way.

Yes, that is what 1e does. And I like it. I like that it makes demihumans seem distinctly different from humans. An Elf can be a F/M-U from day one. A Human has to have high stats, start as one class, then switch to the second and stick with it for the rest of their life. I don't see this as "bad", just like I don't see Race/Class restrictions or level-limits as "bad". I'm "old skool" in most of my preferences of RPG's. After this long, I've accepted that and embraced it as just who I am as a DM and Player. So, for me, 1e/2e MC is just a much better solution than the later iterations of the game. YMMV.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Kobold Boots]

Hiya!


Everything Paul wrote - it's right above this so I'm not going to make another long scrolly window. (o)(o) ^^

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I think it's appropriate to chime in and advise that if you were using experience rules as written for 1ed, the least of your problems was figuring out how to split them up.

1. You could gain experience equal to the amount you needed and you still wouldn't level unless the DM allowed you to.
2. You were to be assigned a ranking based on how well you performed your role and that ranking determined how many weeks of game time your character needed to train with a mentor to level.
3. In many cases you needed to pay a fee to level or each time you leveled (for material suiting your new level or tithing to various entities and colleges)

All from page 86 of the 1e DMG. Leveling was serious business and you see it in the modern concept of downtime.

Once you got past that sillyness (or awesomeness depending on what side of the bed you wake up on) then you could get into multi-classing issues.

1. Experience was gained from treasure earned and killing things. Treasure share was not guaranteed because parties would come to some agreement regarding value and share and some would get screwed.

2. Additionally, it was expected that you were gaining experience only when doing things related to your class skills and role. The DM could dock your share of experience points if you were a priest going off and singing bardic tales or being fighter-y.

3. Last, there was a difference between being multi-classed (demi-human) and having two classes (human). While the formal opinion of the time was that a character only had one experience total, in practice considering all other rules this turned in to multi-class characters having two or more experience totals specific to their classes and the dual classed character having only one total.*

* because the dual classed character could only advance in one class at a time, and couldn't use features of both classes until the second class exceeded the first classes level and so on. Each time the human took a new class he'd have to meet all the requirements and only be the new class until he exceeded his ability in the most previous.

So um, most people didn't do this stuff. (p.33 PHB)

Or, they just didn't do it as written.. which was what annoyed me most at the time I was a player. Modern equivalent to that is as it was back then, people don't read the rules before playing and do it wrong - then enough people do it wrong and it becomes right.

 

[Salthorae]

I have a lot of nostalgia for the 1/2e multiclassing, I’m playing a Ftr/M-U in. 2e game right now!
It’s also why I loved the gestalt rules for 3.5.

But I hated how dual-classes chars worked so I was glad to see that concept done away with. Also level limits were silly and arbitrary. Basically designed so people would have a reason to play humans (I thought)

It’s not the best, but I like 5e multiclassing works overall. Especially if you multi early, where the xp thresholds are so low, you can pretty quickly get to that story point you write for a character.

Also, the best way emulate F/M/T in 5e is either Fighter(EK)/Rogue(AT) or Wiz(Bladesinger) with proficiency in stealth and thieves tools (skilled feat) or background.

The nice thing about 5e is there are many ways to get to a concept and often you don’t even need to multi per se with Feats and Backgrounds. Fighter with Magic Initiate feat and criminal background. Elven Wizard (Bladesinger) with urchin background. Both just as “F/M/T” as the F/M/T was in 1 or 2e. If you really need more then multi to Rogue for the expertise or Cunning action, but you don’t have to.

 

[Kobold Boots]

But I hated how dual-classes chars worked so I was glad to see that concept done away with. Also level limits were silly and arbitrary. Basically designed so people would have a reason to play humans (I thought)

You're not wrong. The system was slanted human due to the underlying fiction that inspired it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In 5e you are never a "F/M/T". The player may conceptualize and have a written background history that tries to explain the whole F/M/T class 'training', but the rules don't support it. Once you get 300 xp you THEN can add one of those classes abilities to your character. After some more xp you can add the third. After more xp you can even add a fourth...which could have nothing to do with your background history. Or you could up one of your F/M/T classes...but only one. And no matter what you do, or how your do it, the player can always choose to just up a single one of those classes.

I'm generally on board with hating a game for any reason whatsoever, but I don't quite follow you here. Under the 3.x multiclassing rules, at any point after third level, you always have the option of keeping your classes as even as possible. You can end up as a level 15 character with 5 levels in each of Fighter/Wizard/Rogue, if you want to. You might end up as 2/1/1 for a while, and then 2/2/1, before you get up to 2/2/2 again. That's not different than AD&D, where a multiclass F/M/T would level up each class at a different time, due to variances in the XP tables and/or earning XP for each class at a different rate.

It would actually be quite difficult to contrive keeping your class levels even, in AD&D, if the DM awarded XP to each class distinctly. If your multiclass character spent a long term as a gladiator, such that an AD&D DM would choose to award more Fighter XP than Thief XP, then you can mimic that same effect by choosing to level your Fighter class at the next level.

I just don't get why it hurts your ability to multiclass evenly, if some other player chooses to multiclass unevenly. If your character maintains an even split between classes, and another character dips a single level into warlock (for whatever reason), then that shouldn't hurt your character identity.

Unless you want to argue from a setting design standpoint, that a world with only even split multiclassing is more interesting than a world where anyone can develop in different ways. Or if you think it makes for a more interesting Game, to play with more limited options. (In either case, I would expect you to also say that dwarves and halflings shouldn't be arcane spellcasters). Those arguments would make sense.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I'm generally on board with hating a game for any reason whatsoever, but I don't quite follow you here. Under the 3.x multiclassing rules, at any point after third level, you always have the option of keeping your classes as even as possible. You can end up as a level 15 character with 5 levels in each of Fighter/Wizard/Rogue, if you want to. You might end up as 2/1/1 for a while, and then 2/2/1, before you get up to 2/2/2 again. That's not different than AD&D, where a multiclass F/M/T would level up each class at a different time, due to variances in the XP tables and/or earning XP for each class at a different rate.

It would actually be quite difficult to contrive keeping your class levels even, in AD&D, if the DM awarded XP to each class distinctly. If your multiclass character spent a long term as a gladiator, such that an AD&D DM would choose to award more Fighter XP than Thief XP, then you can mimic that same effect by choosing to level your Fighter class at the next level.

I just don't get why it hurts your ability to multiclass evenly, if some other player chooses to multiclass unevenly. If your character maintains an even split between classes, and another character dips a single level into warlock (for whatever reason), then that shouldn't hurt your character identity.

Unless you want to argue from a setting design standpoint, that a world with only even split multiclassing is more interesting than a world where anyone can develop in different ways. Or if you think it makes for a more interesting Game, to play with more limited options. (In either case, I would expect you to also say that dwarves and halflings shouldn't be arcane spellcasters). Those arguments would make sense.

The only real difference comes from the mandate in 3e that states when you get enough experience you level and the 1e mandate that says you level when you get enough experience, do all the required things and the DM allows you to.

Big difference in tone and depending on how strict your DM is, it can really put the screws to the player. However, that logic would work in opposition to pmings logic.

KB

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The only real difference comes from the mandate in 3e that states when you get enough experience you level and the 1e mandate that says you level when you get enough experience, do all the required things and the DM allows you to.

Big difference in tone and depending on how strict your DM is, it can really put the screws to the player. However, that logic would work in opposition to pmings logic.

That part was in the DMG. You can require downtime and/or money to train, before anyone is allowed to gain a level. The only difference is that it wasn't the default option.

 

[Kobold Boots]

That part was in the DMG. You can require downtime and/or money to train, before anyone is allowed to gain a level. The only difference is that it wasn't the default option.

Agreed, and that's a big difference because there weren't other options in 1e if you played it RAW as the DM.

 

[Xetheral]

False. That was only true of 4E. In 5E, as in every other edition, the game mechanics are inextricably tied to the fluff.

Are you saying that certain elements of the fluff are inextricably tied to the game mechanics? Or that all of the fluff is inextricably tied to the game mechanics? The former I can agree with: the Fighter mechanics, for example, are inextricably tied to a weapon-user rather than a spellslinger. But the latter I disagree with completely: nothing about the Barbarian's mechanics requires a member of that class to view "civilization as a form of weakness", even though that's mentioned explicitly in the PHB fluff.

Players do not have the authority to establish facts about how the world works; players can only make decisions for their own character. If a player interprets an Oath (or Pact, or whatever) in a manner contrary to how the DM interprets it, then the player has made an honest mistake, and should work with the DM to resolve the conflict. That could mean playing a different character, or it could mean that this one player character works differently from everyone else in the setting (maybe they really are unique, but people might take notice, and there may be consequences).

Wait, why does a Paladin's Oath say anything about how the world works? If Oaths were instead Knightly Orders, I'd agree that a player can't make up the details of an organization without consulting the DM. But the details of an Oath can be unique to each Paladin, and thus don't necessarily have any impact at all on the setting. Shouldn't character decisions that don't impact the setting be up to the player? (With the usual caveat that the DM can reject characters as unsuitable for a game, or request changes.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Are you saying that certain elements of the fluff are inextricably tied to the game mechanics? Or that all of the fluff is inextricably tied to the game mechanics? The former I can agree with: the Fighter mechanics, for example, are inextricably tied to a weapon-user rather than a spellslinger. But the latter I disagree with completely: nothing about the Barbarian's mechanics requires a member of that class to view "civilization as a form of weakness", even though that's mentioned explicitly in the PHB fluff.

Why do you believe that there's a difference between your examples? Why do you accept that the fighter mechanics are tied to their skill with a weapon, but not accept that the barbarian's mechanics are tied to their barbarism?

Wait, why does a Paladin's Oath say anything about how the world works? If Oaths were instead Knightly Orders, I'd agree that a player can't make up the details of an organization without consulting the DM. But the details of an Oath can be unique to each Paladin, and thus don't necessarily have any impact at all on the setting. Shouldn't character decisions that don't impact the setting be up to the player? (With the usual caveat that the DM can reject characters as unsuitable for a game, or request changes.)

The paladin's Oath and the warlock's Pact are the sources by which they acquire their powers. By defining the terms of how these works, you're establishing how the world works, when it comes to accessing those powers. If Cthulhu exists, and your Pact with Cthulhu grants you magical powers, then the terms of the Pact define a truth about Cthulhu, which is beyond the purview of the player or their character.

The paladin's Oath is the price which they must pay in order to access their spells and other magical abilities. Letting a player dictate that price would be like letting them dictate the price for plate armor. A world where there's no real cost associated with becoming a paladin is a different world than one where only the few are capable of becoming (or willing to become) a paladin, in much the same way that a world where plate armor is expensive is different from a world where plate armor is cheap.